Syed Zarina And Another v. Mohd Khaleem Ali

132541

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY SECOND APPEAL NO: 24 OF 2015 Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 15.07.2014 made in A.S. No. 296 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil.Court, Hyderabad Prefened against the Decree in O.S. No. 3223 of 2010 Dated 03.06.20't3 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Between:

1. Syed Zarina,Wlo Syed Haji, Age: 25 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Syed Haji, S/O Syed Jaffer, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, (Both R/o.H.No.19-2-211231541N68, Bashrathnagar, Nawabsab Kunta, Hyderabad.) ...APPE LLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFE NDANTS AND Mohd Khaleem AIi @ Sardar S/o. Mohd.Abdul Kareem, Occ: Business, o/o.23-215213, Shah AIi Banda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTI FF Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K. SAI BABU Counsel forthe Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY SECOND APPEAL No. 24 of 2015

ORDER

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. 2.

The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit No.3223 of 2010 on the file of Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. \ \ lnitially the suit mas filed for recovery of Rs.50,0001 from the defendants. The said suit was decreed on 03.06.2013. Being aggrieved by the same the defendants filed First Appeal vide A.S.No.296 ot 2Q13 on the file of on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 15.07.2014 confirming the trial court judgment. 3.

The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have given concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled for money decree of Rs.50,0001, payable by the defendants with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the Second Appeal.

3.

The substantial question of law raised by the appellants is on facts, but not the law.

')

4. As no question of law is involved in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as costs.

5.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. sD/.fi?fftlts,&fiiR /I //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER to'', . ,n" X Additional chief Judge' city civil court' Hvderabad 2.TheVlllJuniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Sri K' Sai Babu' Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies GJ

HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 810812022 .g'+i,\ ic -r!

$ \ rt$ t$E v

ORDER

SA.No.24 ot 2015 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS lh'6, (ox'